St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-11-05
READY FOR SUMMING UP.
Evidence ALI Taken in the Edwards
Roenisch Shooting Case.
TILTS BETWEEN LAWYERS.
Witnesses Testify That the officer
Had Been Drinking---Legal
Points Involved.


shooting case produced some very strong
testimony against the officer yesterday.
For the defense Wilkin Poucher, rail-
road fireman; Frank Chapman, a boy
employed by the West Publishing COM
pany; Marcus Sittig, F. j. Sullivan, who
lived just across from Ban
holzer's park; William Marcy,
the boy; William Herman, Joseph
Luling, a deputy sheriff; John Swack,
Martin Webber, Albert Filter, August
RoenlSch, the policeman who was shot,
the boy Ernest Smith, and the prisoner,
A. S. Edwards, were all put upon the
stand. Poucher testified that he saw
the policeman strike Edwards, beating
him with club, and that the officer
seemed to be drunk. He also stated that
ne saw the policeman knock down and
kick the boy Smith, and assault both
the boys LaPoint and Herman. Coucher
said the policeman was fourishing his
revolver outside the park and daring
anybody to throw stone at him. Ed
wares and Roenisch were later seen at
the bar, and Edwards told the officer to
put up his revolver. Loucher stated
that instead, the officer abused Ed
wards, saying, 81 did up your
brother-in-law, and l can do you up,
too" The witness saw ROenisch attack
Edwards near the bar and saw the shots
fired, so he said. The boy, Chapman,
testified that the policeman struck him
tChipmam twice with his club and once
with his fist-alSo saw him beat
Smith. Marcus Sittig, another boy,
said the officer also struck him.
Sullivan's testimony was to
the effect that he saw Roenisch beat
Smith and Herman, and that Officer
Mattak told him to put up his revolver,
but instead of doing so he threatened
that he ''would shoot two or three men
yet" Marcy, Herman, Schwack, Web
Der and Filter cOrroborated the teSti-
mony relative to the condition and acts
of the officer. Luling said Edwards ap-
peared to be sober. Smith claimed that
the officer abused him, and Edwards
stated that the officer was drunk and
abusive and attacked him, and that the
shots were fired in self-defense.
In rebuttal Officer Roenisch, Officer
Mattack, Charles Richter, Coroner
Quinn, Officer Banker, Andrew
Strain and William Banholzer,
the proprietor of the place
Judge Egan succeeded in shaking the
testimony of the defense to consider
able extent as to time, place and other
material facts. A little after o'clock
the evidence was all in, and after few
tits between Lawyers Erwin and
Ryan on one hand and County Attorney
Egan on the other on points of law, the
court was adjourned until this morning,
when the both sides will be summed up
before the jury.
THE STATES CASE.
The state is endeavoring to show that
Edwards approached the officer without
provocatiOn and fired at him. The
defense is trying to demonstrate
that the officer was drunk and
abusive, that his mental con-
dition was at fault, and that Edwards
shot him to prevent the officer from do
ing him bodily harm. Judge Egan laid
down the legal points which he would
discuss when he will sum up as follows:
The use of deadly weapons under certain
circumstances and wounds resulting there
from, and the right OF the jury to infer in
tent.
If the jury feel that there was no intent to
kill they may find assault i'll the second de-
gree.
A party can not use q deadly weapon to
resent or repell an act. when there was a
reasonable doubt that the party would not
receive any bodily harm.
That the various encounters between
Smith, Chapman, Dougan and another party
are only proper to be considered by the jury
in reference to the mental condition
of the prosecuting witness, Roenisch, and
the liability to injury of the defendant, Ed
wards, by reason of such mental condition,
and under this head the jury have right to
take into consideration the knowledge of de-
PENDANT of those various acts and encounters
alluded to.
The lawyers got to wrangling several
times, and Judge Egan's zeal for the
prosecution was particularly effective
and emphatic.
you try to bring in witnesses here
to impeach the testimony of the
state" he said, with stentorian
effort, and you can't find them. Why,
because they are lot of cutthroatS.
One of your witnesses (Schwack) has
been arrested since court adjourned for
cutting a man."
1--WE are arguing facts not points of
law" shouted Tom Ryan after rather
you are not arguing points of law: you
don't know any law" retorted the
NV. w. Erwin made an attempt to
talk to the court as to how he should
charge the jury, and went for pile of
books to help him out. "You
needn't read those reports" inter-
rupted Judge Egan: ''that's the
Brown case. The court knows all about
that case. 1t isn't necessary to read
them to the jury. That other case is the
Sorenson case. You will have time to
sum up this case before the jury to-mor-
row."
The Brown and Sorenson cases are
somewhat analogous to the present !
cases so far as the questions of self-de-
Tense and of the mental condition of the
first assailing party are concerned. Mr..
Erwin, however, did manage to get in
for effect upon the jury.